Chaudhary, R (on the application of) v Bristol Crown Court & Anor
Rule 12 of the Crown Court Rules 1982 no longer applies to criminal matters following the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Rules, and the Crown Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to award costs in section 59 applications; therefore, the order for costs was wrong and must be quashed.
- Parties
- Claimant: Mohammad Mumtaz Chaudhary; 1st Defendant: Bristol Crown Court; 2nd Defendant: HMRC
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Substantive Judgment
- Outcome
- Order as to costs quashed
- Legal Topics
- Costs in Criminal Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Crown Court, Interpretation of Procedural Rules
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mohammad Mumtaz Chaudhary
Claimant
Bristol Crown Court
1st Defendant
HMRC
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Costs Determination Following Substantive Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Rule 12 of the Crown Court Rules 1982 remains in force for awarding costs in criminal matters after the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Rules
- 2 Whether the Crown Court has inherent jurisdiction to award costs in applications under section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 12 of the Crown Court Rules 1982 no longer applies to criminal matters following the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Rules, and the Crown Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to award costs in section 59 applications; therefore, the order for costs was wrong and must be quashed.
Court Disposition
Order as to costs quashed
Orders
- The order as to costs is quashed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment